The Glorious Revolution of 1688 The Glorious Revolution of 1688 Stephen Quinn, Texas Christian University The Glorious Revolution was when William of Orange took the English throne from James II in 1688. The event brought a permanent realignment of power within the English constitution. The new co-monarchy of King William III and Queen Mary II accepted more constraints from Parliament than previous monarchs had, and the new constitution created the expectation that future monarchs would also remain constrained by Parliament. The new balance of power between parliament and crown made the promises of the English government more credible, and credibility allowed the government to reorganize its finances through a collection of changes called the Financial Revolution. A more contentious argument is that the constitutional changes made property rights more secure and thus promoted economic development. Historical Overview Tension between king and parliament ran deep throughout the seventeenth century. In the 1640s, the dispute turned into civil war. The loser, Charles I, was beheaded in 1649; his sons, Charles and James, fled to France; and the victorious Oliver Cromwell ruled England in the 1650s.

Cromwell’s death in 1659 created a political vacuum, so Parliament invited Charles I’s sons back from exile, and the English monarchy was restored with the coronation of Charles II in 1660. Tensions after the Restoration The Restoration, however, did not settle the fundamental questions of power between king and Parliament. Indeed, exile had exposed Charles I’s sons to the strong monarchical methods of Louis XIV. Charles and James returned to Britain with expectations of an absolute monarchy justified by the Divine Right of Kings, so tensions continued during the reigns of Charles II (1660-1685) and his brother James II (1685-88). Table 1 lists many of the tensions and the positions favored by each side. The compromise struck during the Restoration was that Charles II would control his succession, that he would control his judiciary, and that he would have the power to collect traditional taxes. In exchange, Charles II would remain Protestant and the imposition of additional taxes would require Parliament’s approval.

Table 1 Issues Separating Crown and Parliament, 1660-1688 Issue Royal right to control succession (Parliamentary approval NOT required) Parliament’s right to meet (Royal summons NOT required) Royal authority sufficient to impose and collect traditional taxes. Parliamentary authority necessary to impose and collect traditional taxes. traditional taxes traditional taxes. Royal authority sufficient to impose and collect new taxes. Parliamentary authority necessary to impose and collect new taxes. Appropriation Complete royal control over expenditures. Parliamentary audit or even appropriation. In practice, authority over additional taxation was how Parliament constrained Charles II. Charles brought England into war against Protestant Holland (1665-67) with the support of extra taxes authorized by Parliament. In the years following that war, however, the extra funding from Parliament ceased, but Charles II’s borrowing and spending did not. By 1671, all his income was committed to regular expenses and paying interest on his debts. Parliament would not authorize additional funds, so Charles II was fiscally shackled. Treaty of Dover To regain fiscal autonomy and subvert Parliament, Charles II signed the secret Treaty of Dover with Louis XIV in 1671.

Charles agreed that England would join France in war against Holland and that he would publicly convert to Catholicism. In return, Charles received cash from France and the prospect of victory spoils that would solve his debt problem. The treaty, however, threatened the Anglican Church, contradicted Charles II’s stated policy of support for Protestant Holland, and provided a source of revenue independent of Parliament. Moreover, to free the money needed to launch his scheme, Charles stopped servicing many of his debts in an act called the Stop of the Exchequer, and, in Machiavellian fashion, Charles isolated a few bankers to take the loss (Roseveare 1991). The gamble, however, was lost when the English Navy failed to defeat the Dutch in 1672. Charles then avoided a break with Parliament by retreating from Catholicism. James II Parliament, however, was also unable to gain the upper hand. From 1679 to 1681, Protestant nobles had Parliament pass acts excluding Charles II’s Catholic brother James from succession to the throne. The political turmoil of the Exclusion Crisis created the Whig faction favoring exclusion and the Tory counter-faction opposing exclusion.

Even with a majority in Commons, however, the Whigs could not force a reworking of the constitution in their favor because Charles responded by dissolving three Parliaments without giving his consent to the acts. As a consequence of the stalemate, Charles did not summon Parliament over the final years of his life, and James did succeed to the throne in 1685. Unlike the pragmatic Charles, James II boldly pushed for all of his goals. On the religious front, the Catholic James upset his Anglican allies by threatening the preeminence of the Anglican Church (Jones 1978, 238). He also declared that his son and heir would be raised Catholic. On the military front, James expanded the standing army and promoted Catholic officers. On the financial front, he attempted to subvert Parliament by packing it with his loyalists. With a packed Parliament, “the king and his ministers could have achieved practical and permanent independence by obtaining a larger revenue” (Jones 1978, p. 243). By 1688, Tories, worried about the Church of England, and Whigs, worried about the independence of Parliament, agreed that they needed to unite against James II.

William of Orange The solution became Mary Stuart and her husband, William of Orange. English factions invited Mary and William to seize the throne because the couple was Protestant and Mary was the daughter of James II. The situation, however, had additional drama because William was also the military commander of the Dutch Republic, and, in 1688, the Dutch were in a difficult military position. Holland was facing war with France (the Nine Years War, 1688-97), and the possibility was growing that James II would bring England into the war on the side of France. James was nearing open war with his son-in-law William. For William and Holland, accepting the invitation and invading England was a bold gamble, but the success could turn England from a threat to an ally. William landed in England with a Dutch army on November 5, 1688 (Israel 1991). Defections in James II’s army followed before battle was joined, and William allowed James to flee to France. Parliament took the flight of James II as abdication and the co-reign of William III and Mary II officially replaced him on February 13, 1689.

Although Mary had the claim to the throne as James II’s daughter, William demanded to be made King and Mary wanted William to have that power. Authority was simplified when Mary’s death in 1694 left William the sole monarch. New Constitution The deal struck between Parliament and the royal couple in 1688-89 was that Parliament would support the war against France, while William and Mary would accept new constraints on their authority. The new constitution reflected the relative weakness of William’s bargaining position more than any strength in Parliament’s position. Parliament feared the return of James, but William very much needed England’s willing support in the war against France because the costs would be extraordinary and William would be focused on military command instead of political wrangling. The initial constitutional settlement was worked out in 1689 in the English Bill of Rights, the Toleration Act, and the Mutiny Act that collectively committed the monarchs to respect Parliament and Parliament’s laws. Fiscal power was settled over the 1690s as Parliament stopped granting the monarchs the authority to collect taxes for life.

Instead, Parliament began regular re-authorization of all taxes, Parliament began to specify how new revenue authorizations could be spent, Parliament began to audit how revenue was spent, and Parliament diverted some funds entirely from the king’s control (Dickson 1967: 48-73). By the end of the war in 1697, the new fiscal powers of Parliament were largely in place. Constitutional Credibility The financial and economic importance of the arrangement between William and Mary and Parliament was that the commitments embodied in the constitutional monarchy of the Glorious Revolution were more credible that the commitments under the Restoration constitution (North and Weingast 1989). Essential to the argument is what economists mean by the term credible. If a constitution is viewed as a deal between Parliament and the Crown, then credibility means how believable it is today that Parliament and the king will choose to honor their promises tomorrow. Credibility does not ask whether Charles II reneged on a promise; rather, credibility asks if people expected Charles to renege. One can represent the situation by drawing a decision tree that shows the future choices determining credibility.

For example, the decision tree in Figure 1 contains the elements determining the credibility of Charles II’s honoring the Restoration constitution of 1660. Going forward in time from 1660 (left to right), the critical decision is whether Charles II will honor the constitution or eventually renege. The future decision by Charles, however, will depend on his estimation of benefits of becoming an absolute monarch versus the cost of failure and the chances he assigns to each. Determining credibility in 1660 requires working backwards (right to left). If one thinks Charles II will risk civil war to become an absolute monarch, then one would expect Charles II to renege on the constitution, and therefore the constitution lacks credibility despite what Charles II may promise in 1660. In contrast, if one expects Charles II to avoid civil war, then one would expect Charles to choose to honor the constitution, so the Restoration constitution would be credible. Figure 1. Restoration of 1660 Decision Tree A difficulty with credibility is foreseeing future options. With hindsight, we know that Charles II did attempt to break the Restoration constitution in 1670-72.

When his war against Holland failed, he repaired relations with Parliament and avoided civil war, so Charles managed something not portrayed in Figure 1. He replaced the outcome of civil war in the decision tree with the outcome of a return to the status quo. The consequence of removing the threat of civil war, however, was to destroy credibility in the king’s commitment to the constitution. If James II believed he inherited the options created by his brother, then James II’s 1685 commitment to the Restoration constitution lacked credibility because the worst that would happen to James was a return to the status quo. So why would the Glorious Revolution constitution be more credible than Restoration constitution challenged by both Charles II and James II? William was very unlikely to become Catholic or pro-French which eliminated many tensions. Also, William very much needed Parliament’s support for his war against France; however, the change in credibility argued by North and Weingast (1989) looks past William’s reign, so it also requires confidence that William’s successors would abide by the constitution. A source of long-run confidence was that the Glorious Revolution reasserted the risk of a monarch losing his throne.

William III’s decision tree in 1689 again looked like Charles II’s in 1660, and Parliament’s threat to remove an offending monarch was becoming credible. The seventeenth century had now seen Parliament remove two of the four Stuart monarchs, and the second displacement in 1688 was much easier than the wars that ended the reign of Charles I in 1649. Another lasting change that made the new constitution more credible than the old constitution was that William and his successors were more constrained in fiscal matters. Parliament’s growing ‘power of the purse’ gave the king less freedom to maneuver a constitutional challenge. Moreover, Parliament’s fiscal control increased over time because the new constitution favored Parliament in the constitutional renegotiations that accompanied each succeeding monarch. As a result, the Glorious Revolution constitution made credible the enduring ascendancy of Parliament. In terms of the king, the new constitution increased the credibility of the proposition that kings would not usurp Parliament. Fiscal Credibility The second credibility story of the Glorious Revolution was that the increased credibility of the government’s constitutional structure translated into an increased credibility for the government’s commitments.

When acting together, the king and Parliament retained the power to default on debt, seize property, or change rules; so why would the credibility of the constitution create confidence in a government’s promises to the public? A king who lives within the constitution has less desire to renege on his commitments. Recall that Charles II defaulted on his debts in an attempt to subvert the constitution, and, in contrast, Parliament after the Glorious Revolution generously financed wars for monarchs who abided by the constitution. An irony of the Glorious Revolution is that monarchs who accepted constitutional constraints gained more resources than their absolutist forebears. Still, should a monarch want to have his government renege, Parliament will not always agree, and a stable constitution assures a Parliamentary veto. The two houses of Parliament, Commons and Lords, creates more veto opportunities, and the chances of a policy change decrease with more veto opportunities if the king and the two houses have different interests (Weingast 1997). Another aspect of Parliament is the role of political parties. For veto opportunities to block change, opponents need only to control one veto, and here the coalition aspect of parties was important.

For example, the Whig coalition combined dissenting Protestants and moneyed interests, so each could rely on mutual support through the Whig party to block government action against either. Cross-issue bargaining between factions creates a cohesive coalition on multiple issues (Stasavage 2002). An additional reason for Parliament’s credibility was reputation. As a deterrent against violating commitments today, reputation relies on penalties felt tomorrow, so reputation often does not deter those overly focused on the present. A desperate king is a common example. As collective bodies of indefinite life, however, Parliament and political parties have longer time horizons than an individual, so reputation has better chance of fostering credibility. A measure of fiscal credibility is the risk premium that the market puts on government debt. During the Nine Years War (1688-97), government debt carried a risk premium of 4 percent over private debt, but that risk premium disappeared and became a small discount in the years 1698 to 1705 (Quinn 2001: 610).

The drop in the rates on government debt marks a substantial increase in the market’s confidence in the government after the Treaty of Ryswick ended the Nine Years War in 1697 and left William III and the new constitution intact. A related measure of confidence was the market price of stock in companies like the Bank of England and the East India Company. Because those companies were created by Parliamentary authorization and held large quantities of government debt, changes in confidence were reflected in changes in their stock prices. Again, the Treaty of Ryswick greatly increased stock prices and confirms a substantial increase in the credibility of the government (Wells and Wills 2000, 434). In contrast, later Jacobite threats, such as the invasion of Scotland by James II’s son ‘the Pretender’ in 1708, had negative but largely transitory effects on share prices. Financial Consequences The fiscal credibility of the English government created by the Glorious Revolution unleashed a revolution in public finance. The most prominent element was the introduction of long-run borrowing by the government, because such borrowing absolutely relied on the government’s fiscal credibility.

To create credible long-run debt, Parliament took responsibility for the debt, and Parliamentary-funded debt became the National Debt, instead of just the king’s debt. To bolster credibility, Parliament committed future tax revenues to servicing the debts and introduced new taxes as needed (Dickson 1967, Brewer 1988). Credible government debt formed the basis of the Bank of England in 1694 and the core the London stock market. The combination of these changes has been called the Financial Revolution and was essential for Britain’s emergence as a Great Power in the eighteenth century (Neal 2000). While the Glorious Revolution was critical to the Financial Revolution in England, the follow up assertion in North and Weingast (1989) that the Glorious Revolution increased the security of property rights in general, and so spurred economic growth, remains an open question. A difficulty is how to test the question.

An increase in the credibility of property rights might cause interest rates to decrease because people become willing to save more; however, rates based on English property rentals show no effect from the Glorious Revolution, and the rates of one London banker actually increased after the Glorious Revolution (Clark 1996, Quinn 2001). In contrast, high interest rates could indicate that the Glorious Revolution increased entrepreneurship and demand for investment. Unfortunately, high rates could also mean that the expansion of government borrowing permitted by the Financial Revolution crowded out investment. North and Weingast (1989) point to a general expansion of financial intermediation which is supported by studies like Carlos, Key, and Dupree (1998) that find the secondary market for Royal African Company and Hudson’s Bay Company stocks became busier in the 1690s. Distinguishing between crowding out and increased demand for investment, however, relies on establishing whether the overall quantity of business investment changed, and that remains unresolved because of the difficulty in constructing such an aggregate measure. The potential linkages between the credibility created by the Glorious Revolution and economic development remain an open question. References: Brewer, John. The Sinews of Power.

Cambridge: Harvard Press, 1988. Carlos, Ann M., Jennifer Key, and Jill L. Dupree. “Learning and the Creation of Stock-Market Institutions: Evidence from the Royal African and Hudson’s Bay Companies, 1670-1700.” Journal of Economic History 58, no. 2 (1998): 318-44. Clark, Gregory. “The Political Foundations of Modern Economic Growth: England, 1540-1800.” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 55 (1996): 563-87. Dickson, Peter. The Financial Revolution in England. New York: St. Martin’s, 1967. Israel, Jonathan. “The Dutch Role in the Glorious Revolution.” In The Anglo-Dutch Moment, edited by Jonathan Israel, 103-62. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Jones, James, Country and Court England, 1658-1714. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978. Neal, Larry.

“How it All Began: the Monetary and Financial Architecture of Europe during the First Global Capital Markets, 1648-1815.” Financial History Review 7 (2000): 117-40. North, Douglass, and Barry Weingast. “Constitutions and Commitment: The Evolution of Institutions Governing Public Choice in Seventeenth-Century England.” Journal of Economic History 49, no. 4(1989): 803-32. Roseveare, Henry. The Financial Revolution 1660-1760. London: Longman, 1991. Quinn, Stephen. “The Glorious Revolution’s Effect on English Private Finance: A Microhistory, 1680-1705.” Journal of Economic History 61, no. 3 (2001): 593-615. Stasavage, David. “Credible Commitments in Early Modern Europe: North and Weingast Revisited.” Journal of Law and Economics 18, no. 1 (2002): 155-86.

Weingast, Barry, “The Political Foundations of Limited Government: Parliament Sovereign Debt in Seventeenth-Century and Eighteenth-Century England.” In The Frontiers of the New Institutional Economics, edited by John Drobak and John Nye, 213-246. San Diego: Academic Press, 1997. Wells, John, and Douglas Wills. “Revolution, Restoration, and Debt Repudiation: The Jacobite Threat to England’s Institutions and Economic Growth.” Journal of Economic History 60, no 2 (2000): 418-41. Citation: Quinn, Stephen. “The Glorious Revolution of 1688″. EH.Net Encyclopedia, edited by Robert Whaples. April 17, 2003. URL © EH.Net - Economic History Services BBC - History - British History in depth: The Glorious Revolution Print this page Fear of Catholic tyranny The Glorious Revolution of 1688-1689 replaced the reigning king, James II, with the joint monarchy of his protestant daughter Mary and her Dutch husband, William of Orange.

It was the keystone of the Whig (those opposed to a Catholic succession) history of Britain. According to the Whig account, the events of the revolution were bloodless and the revolution settlement established the supremacy of parliament over the crown, setting Britain on the path towards constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy. But it ignores the extent to which the events of 1688 constituted a foreign invasion of England by another European power, the Dutch Republic. Although bloodshed in England was limited, the revolution was only secured in Ireland and Scotland by force and with much loss of life. England would become merely a satellite state, under the control of an all-powerful Catholic monarch. Moreover, the British causes of the revolution were as much religious as political. Indeed, the immediate constitutional impact of the revolution settlement was minimal. Nonetheless, over the course of the reign of William III (1689-1702) society underwent significant and long-lasting changes. To understand why James II’s most powerful subjects eventually rose up in revolt against him we need to understand the deep-seated fear of 'popery' in Stuart England. 'Popery' meant more than just a fear or hatred of Catholics and the Catholic church.

It reflected a widely-held belief in an elaborate conspiracy theory, that Catholics were actively plotting the overthrow of church and state. In their place would be established a Catholic tyranny, with England becoming merely a satellite state, under the control of an all-powerful Catholic monarch, (in the era of the Glorious Revolution, identified with Louis XIV of France). This conspiracy theory was given credibility by the existence of some genuine catholic subterfuge, most notably the Gunpowder Plot of 1605. A new crisis of ‘popery and arbitrary government' erupted in the late 1670s. Public anxieties were raised by the issue of the royal succession. Charles II fathered no legitimate offspring. This meant that the crown would pass to his brother, James, Duke of York, whose conversion to Catholicism had become public knowledge in 1673. Public concern about the succession reached fever pitch in the years 1678-1681. The so-called ‘exclusion crisis’ was provoked by allegations made by Titus Oates, a former Jesuit novice, of a popish plot to assassinate Charles II and place his brother on the throne.

The fantastical plot was given credibility by the mysterious death of Sir Edmund Bury Godfrey, the magistrate who first investigated Oates’ claims. Whig politicians within parliament, led by the earl of Shaftesbury, promoted exclusion bills which would have prevented James from succeeding to the throne. But the radical tactics deployed by the king’s opponents, including mass petitions and demonstrations, gradually alienated some initial supporters of exclusion. Charles’s hand was strengthened further by an agreement with France reached in March 1681, by which the king received £385,000 over three years. With this financial support, and with public opinion turning against his critics, Charles was able to dissolve parliament on 28 March 1681. Top Rebellion and revolt James II © James II’s authority appeared to be secure when he succeeded to the throne in February 1685. The king’s initial promises to defend the existing government in church and state reassured many of those worried by his personal faith. James was well-off financially, with a tax revenue over £1,200,000. The manipulation of borough charters in the last years of Charles II’s reign ensured that James’ first parliament was dominated by loyal Tories.

Parliament also voted James considerable emergency sums to suppress the rebellion raised by Charles II’s eldest illegitimate son, the duke of Monmouth in June 1685. James’ army of professional soldiers easily crushed the 3,000 to 4,000 rebels who joined Monmouth’s cause. Initial support for the king ebbed away as it became clear that he wished to secure not only freedom of worship for Catholics, but also the removal of the Test and Corporation Acts so that they could occupy public office. Unease at the king’s appointment of Catholic officers to the army forced him to prorogue parliament on 20 November 1685. In April 1687, James issued a declaration of indulgence, suspending penal laws against Catholics. James then attempted to secure his religious objectives through the use of his prerogative powers. The test case of Godden vs Hales (1686) established James’ right to suspend the provisions of the Test Acts, thereby allowing the king to appoint a number of Catholic peers to his Privy Council.

In April 1687, James issued a declaration of indulgence, suspending penal laws against Catholics and granting toleration to some Protestant dissenters. In the summer of 1687, James formally dissolved his parliament and began canvassing officials across the country regarding their support for the formal repeal of the Test Acts. The information was used to begin a purge of corporations, aimed at producing a pliable parliament which would agree to the king’s wishes. These measures met with increasing opposition from the Anglican-Tory establishment. In July, members of Magdalen College, Oxford were stripped of their fellowships for refusing to appoint the king’s choice, Samuel Parker, a bishop who supported the repeal of the Test Acts, as their college president. In May of 1688, seven leading bishops, including William Sancroft, Archbishop of Canterbury, refused to follow the order to read the king’s second declaration of indulgence from their pulpits. James responded by having them arrested for seditious libel and taken to the Tower of London. Their acquittal at trial was met with widespread public rejoicing. Top Dutch invasion The Anglican campaign against James II’s religious policies went no further than passive resistance.

But a number of English peers including the earls of Danby and Halifax, and Henry Compton, Bishop of London, went further, making contact with the Dutch leader, William of Orange. Two factors moved James II’s opponents to urge William to intervene militarily. Firstly, after years of trying, James’ Catholic second wife finally fell pregnant. The birth of a healthy male heir, James Edward Stuart, on 10 June 1688, dashed hopes that the crown would soon pass to James’s protestant daughter Mary. Secondly, William’s co-conspirators believed that the parliament James planned to summon in the autumn would repeal the Test Acts. William’s main reason for interfering in English affairs was pragmatic – to bring England into his war against France. The grave danger posed to the Protestant succession and the Anglican establishment led seven peers to write to William on 30 June 1688, pledging their support to the prince if he brought a force into England against James. William had already begun making military preparations for an invasion of England before this letter was sent. Indeed, the letter itself mainly served a propaganda purpose, to allow the prince of Orange to present his intervention as a mercy mission.

In fact, William’s main reason for interfering in English affairs was essentially pragmatic – he wished to bring England into his war against Louis XIV’s France and a free parliament was seen as more likely to support this. The forces that the prince of Orange amassed for his invasion were vast, the flotilla consisting of 43 men-of-war, four light frigates and 10 fireships protecting over 400 flyboats capable of carrying 21,000 soldiers. All in all, it was an armada four times the size of that launched by the Spanish in 1588. Top Revolution Aided by the so-called ‘Protestant wind’ which prevented James’ navy from intercepting the Dutch fleet, William landed at Torbay, Devon, on 5 November 1688, the exact timing of his landfall neatly fitting with the anniversary of another celebrated moment when the nation was delivered from popery. James had made military preparations for the defence of England over the summer and autumn of 1688 and his army encamped on Hounslow Heath was, at about 25,000 men, numerically larger than the force brought over by William.

For the first time since the 1640s, England was faced with the prospect of civil war. News of the prince’s arrival had sparked off waves of anti-Catholic rioting in towns and cities across England. The civil unrest convinced James to leave London and bring out his forces to meet the invading army in a pitched battle. James made his first attempt to escape, but was captured by Kent fishermen near Sheerness. But the Orangist conspiracy against James had been maturing for years and had infiltrated James’ own army, with the king’s nephew, Lord Cornbury, one of the first to defect to William. At this point, James’ health also deserted him. He was frequently debilitated by heavy nosebleeds. Having reached Salisbury on 19 November with the intention of resisting William’s advance, James had by the 23 November resolved to retreat back to London. The desertions continued, with the defection of John Churchill, later Duke of Marlborough, and James’ son-in-law, the Prince of Denmark on 24 November.

The final betrayal came on the king’s return to his capital on the 26 November when he discovered that his daughter, Princess Anne had also absconded to join the Orangist side. James now announced that he was willing to agree to William’s main demand - to call a ‘free’ parliament. However, the king was now convinced that his own life was in danger and was making preparations to flee the country. Meanwhile, William’s advance upon the capital had met with some resistance - a bloody skirmish at Reading on 7 December with over 50 killed. On 11 December, in the wake of renewed anti-Catholic rioting in London, James made his first attempt to escape, but was captured by Kent fishermen near Sheerness. The king’s capture was an inconvenience for William, who was now looked upon as the only individual capable of restoring order to the country, and on 23 December, with the prince’s connivance, James successfully fled the country. The ‘convention parliament’, made up of members from Charles II’s last parliament, convened on 22 January 1689.

After considerable pressure from William himself, parliament agreed that he would rule as joint monarch with Mary, rather than act merely as her consort, and on 13 February William and Mary formally accepted the throne. Before they were offered the crown, William and Mary were presented with a document called the Declaration of Rights, later enshrined in law as the Bill of Rights, which affirmed a number of constitutional principles, such as the illegality of prerogative suspending and dispensing powers, the prohibition of taxation without parliamentary consent and the need for regular parliaments. In reality, the Bill of Rights placed few real restrictions on the crown. It was not until 1694 that the call for regular parliaments was backed up by the Triennial Act. Pressure from William also ensured the passage in May 1689 of the Toleration Act, granting many Protestant groups, but not Catholics, freedom of worship. This toleration was, however, considerably more limited than that envisaged by James II. Top Consequences If we take the revolution to encompass the whole of William III’s reign, it certainly imposed limitations on royal authority.

Parliament gained powers over taxation, over the royal succession, over appointments and over the right of the crown to wage war independently, concessions that William thought were a price worth paying in return for parliament’s financial support for his war against France. William’s wars profoundly changed the British state. Their massive cost led not only to growth of modern financial institutions – most notably the Bank of England founded in 1694 – but also to greater scrutiny of crown expenditure through parliamentary committees of accounts. The bureaucracy required to harvest all this money grew exponentially too. In Ireland and Scotland, the settlements were extremely politically and religiously divisive. The revolution’s legacy might be seen as negative in other ways. In Ireland and Scotland, the revolution was militarily contested and its settlements extremely politically and religiously divisive. For example, Irish Protestants disregarded the generous peace terms of the Treaty of Limerick (3 October 1691) and established a monopoly over land-ownership and political power. The revolution also failed to limit the power of parliaments and created no body of protected constitutional law.

Therefore the Septennial Act of 1716 was able to effectively undermine the terms of the 1694 Triennial Act, ushering in the lengthy rule of a Whig oligarchy. The revolution also fostered the growth of slavery by ending the Royal African Company’s monopoly on the trade in 1698. For the non-white inhabitants of the British Atlantic empire, the Glorious Revolution represented not the broadening of freedom but the expansion of servitude. William III by T Claydon (Longman, 2002) Revolution: The Great Crisis of the British Monarchy by T Harris (Allen Lane, 2006) The Anglo-Dutch Moment: Essays on the Glorious Revolution and its World Impact by J Israel ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2003) The Glorious Revolution by J Miller (Longman, 2nd edn., 1999) The Glorious Revolution: A Brief History with Documents by SC A Pincus (St.

Martin’s Press, 2005) England in the 1690s by C Rose (Blackwell, 1999) James II by WA Speck (Longman, 2002) The Glorious Revolution: 1688 and Britain’s Fight for Liberty by E Vallance (Little, Brown and Co, 2006) Top About the author Dr Edward Vallance is Lecturer in Early Modern British History at the University of Liverpool. He works on seventeenth-century British political and religious history and is the author of Revolutionary England and the National Covenant: State Oaths, Protestantism and the Political Nation, 1553-1682 (Boydell, 2005) and The Glorious Revolution: 1688 and Britain's Fight for Liberty (Little, Brown and Co, 2006). He is currently writing a history of English radicalism from Magna Carta to the present day.

Glorious Revolution | Article about Glorious Revolution by The Free Dictionary Glorious Revolution | Article about Glorious Revolution by The Free Dictionary Related to Glorious Revolution: American Revolution Glorious Revolution, in English history, the events of 1688–89 that resulted in the deposition of James II James II, 1633–1701, king of England, Scotland, and Ireland (1685–88); second son of Charles I, brother and successor of Charles II. Early Life ..... Click the link for more information. and the accession of William III William III, 1650–1702, king of England, Scotland, and Ireland (1689–1702); son of William II, prince of Orange, stadtholder of the United Provinces of the Netherlands, and of Mary, oldest daughter of King Charles I of England. ..... Click the link for more information. and Mary II Mary II, 1662–94, queen of England, wife of William III. The daughter of James II by his first wife, Anne Hyde, she was brought up a Protestant despite her father's adoption of Roman Catholicism.

In 1677 she married her cousin William of Orange and went with him to Holland. ..... Click the link for more information. to the English throne. It is also called the Bloodless Revolution. The restoration of Charles II Charles II, 1630–85, king of England, Scotland, and Ireland (1660–85), eldest surviving son of Charles I and Henrietta Maria. Early Life Prince of Wales at the time of the English civil war, Charles was sent (1645) to the W of England with his council, ..... Click the link for more information. in 1660 was met with misgivings by many Englishmen who suspected the Stuarts of Roman Catholic and absolutist leanings. Charles II increased this distrust by not being responsive to Parliament Parliament, legislative assembly of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Over the centuries it has become more than a legislative body; it is the sovereign power of Great Britain, whereas the monarch remains sovereign in name only. ..... Click the link for more information. , by his toleration of Catholic dissent, and by favoring alliances with Catholic powers in Europe.

A parliamentary group, the Whigs Whig, English political party. The name, originally a term of abuse first used for Scottish Presbyterians in the 17th cent., seems to have been a shortened form of whiggamor [cattle driver]. It was applied (c. ..... Click the link for more information. , tried to ensure a Protestant successor by excluding James, duke of York (later James II), from the throne, but they were unsuccessful. After James's accession (1685) his overt Catholicism and the birth of a Catholic prince who would succeed to the throne united the hitherto loyal Tories (see Tory Tory , English political party. The term was originally applied to outlaws in Ireland and was adopted as a derogatory name for supporters of the duke of York (later James II) at the time (c. ..... Click the link for more information. ) with the Whigs in common opposition to James. Seven Whig and Tory leaders sent an invitation to the Dutch prince William of Orange and his consort, Mary, Protestant daughter of James, to come to England. William landed at Torbay in Devonshire with an army.

James's forces, under John Churchill (later duke of Marlborough), deserted him, and James fled to France (Dec., 1688). There was some debate in England on how to transfer power; whether to recall James on strict conditions or under a regency, whether to depose him outright, or whether to treat his flight as an abdication. The last course was decided upon, and early in 1689 William and Mary accepted the invitation of Parliament to rule as joint sovereigns. The Declaration of Rights and the Bill of Rights Bill of Rights, 1689, in British history, one of the fundamental instruments of constitutional law. It registered in statutory form the outcome of the long 17th-century struggle between the Stuart kings and the English Parliament. ..... Click the link for more information. (1689) redefined the relationship between monarch and subjects and barred any future Catholic succession to the throne. The royal power to suspend and dispense with law was abolished, and the crown was forbidden to levy taxation or maintain a standing army in peacetime without parliamentary consent. The provisions of the Bill of Rights were, in effect, the conditions upon which the throne was offered to and accepted by William and Mary.

These events were a milestone in the gradual process by which practical power shifted from the monarch to Parliament. The theoretical ascendancy of Parliament was never thereafter successfully challenged. Bibliography See G. M. Trevelyan, The English Revolution, 1688–1689 (1938); L. Pinkham, William III and the Respectable Revolution (1954); J. Childs, The Army, James II, and the Glorious Revolution (1981); S. E. Prall, The Bloodless Revolution (1972); T. Harris, Revolution (2008); S. Pincus, 1688: The First Modern Revolution (2009). Glorious Revolution a term accepted in bourgeois historiography to designate a coup that took place in England during the period 1688–89. The coup was the result of a compromise between a group of large landowners and the victors in the English Civil War—the bourgeoisie and the new gentry. As a result of the coup, James II Stuart was deposed, and royal power was handed over to his son-in-law, the Dutch stadholder William III of Orange.

William’s wife and daughter of James II, Mary II Stuart, was declared William’s coruler. By applying the designation Glorious Revolution to the coup of 1688–89, bourgeois historians attempted to contrast this “legal” conspiracy, limited to the ruling classes, with the revolution of the mid-17th century. The real significance of the coup was that it abolished absolutism and established a constitutional monarchy in England. Parliament became the highest power in the monarchy, and it represented the interests of a considerable portion of the landed aristocracy and the big bourgeoisie. N. M. M Glorious Revolution Encyclopedia > History > Modern Europe > British and Irish History Glorious Revolution Glorious Revolution, in English history, the events of 1688–89 that resulted in the deposition of James II and the accession of William III and Mary II to the English throne. It is also called the Bloodless Revolution. The restoration of Charles II in 1660 was met with misgivings by many Englishmen who suspected the Stuarts of Roman Catholic and absolutist leanings.

Charles II increased this distrust by not being responsive to Parliament , by his toleration of Catholic dissent, and by favoring alliances with Catholic powers in Europe. A parliamentary group, the Whigs , tried to ensure a Protestant successor by excluding James, duke of York (later James II), from the throne, but they were unsuccessful. After James's accession (1685) his overt Catholicism and the birth of a Catholic prince who would succeed to the throne united the hitherto loyal Tories (see Tory ) with the Whigs in common opposition to James. Seven Whig and Tory leaders sent an invitation to the Dutch prince William of Orange and his consort, Mary, Protestant daughter of James, to come to England. William landed at Torbay in Devonshire with an army. James's forces, under John Churchill (later duke of Marlborough), deserted him, and James fled to France (Dec., 1688). There was some debate in England on how to transfer power; whether to recall James on strict conditions or under a regency, whether to depose him outright, or whether to treat his flight as an abdication.

The last course was decided upon, and early in 1689 William and Mary accepted the invitation of Parliament to rule as joint sovereigns. The Declaration of Rights and the Bill of Rights (1689) redefined the relationship between monarch and subjects and barred any future Catholic succession to the throne. The royal power to suspend and dispense with law was abolished, and the crown was forbidden to levy taxation or maintain a standing army in peacetime without parliamentary consent. The provisions of the Bill of Rights were, in effect, the conditions upon which the throne was offered to and accepted by William and Mary. These events were a milestone in the gradual process by which practical power shifted from the monarch to Parliament. The theoretical ascendancy of Parliament was never thereafter successfully challenged. See G. M. Trevelyan, The English Revolution, 1688–1689 (1938); L. Pinkham, William III and the Respectable Revolution (1954); J. Childs, The Army, James II, and the Glorious Revolution (1981); S. E. Prall, The Bloodless Revolution (1972); T.

Harris, Revolution (2008); S. Pincus, 1688: The First Modern Revolution (2009). The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed. Copyright © 2012, Columbia University Press. All rights reserved. British Literature Wiki - Religion, Politics, and the Glorious Revolution of 1688 Religion, Politics, and the Glorious Revolution of 1688 Religion, Politics, and the Glorious Revolution of 1688 King James II of England - G. Kneller (1684) Under the short rule of King James II from 6 February 1685 to 11 December 1688, England would soon find out what sort of nation it has been in the past, and what sort of nation it wanted to be in the future. King James II views on the Protestant faith versus Catholicism and his position regarding the 'Divine Right of Kings' would eventually pave the way for a glorious yet bloodless revolution in 1688.

Table of Contents References Religious Background For almost a thousand years, Rome influenced the Church of England; Catholicism infiltrating and affecting just about every aspect of life: trade, contracts, marriage etc. A century before the Glorious Revolution, England, under the rule of King Henry VIII adopted it's own form of Catholicism namely Anglicism. During the 17th century, the whole of Europe was inflamed with war and under a constant struggle to establish a unified church under a unified empire. The Holy Roman Empire was slowly loosing it's grip on distant countries, and with it, control. During King Charles II's 25 year reign over England, shortly before the revolution, tensions slowly began to grow being that he did not have a legitimate issue to become heir to the throne. That implied that the crown would pass to his Catholic brother James which in turn incited the fear of absolute rule, popery, slavery, and subjugation to France and Rome.

In order to "extenuate royal indulgence, and to defuse the anxiety of his subjects", King Charles II commissioned then Poet Laureate John Dryden to compose what would become a "menacing masterpiece" named "Absalom and Achitophel" which wove together "the Bible and contemporary politics" as a work of propaganda, and ultimately cost him his position after the revolution commenced.[ 1 ] Political Background King James II brought many tensions between the people of England because of the political changes that he made while he reigned as king. Coming into power as a Catholic already brought many concerns to the people because they feared popery and Catholic tyranny. However, he assured the people that he beliefs would not contribute to his manner in leading the country. Soon after the beginning of his reign, all that began to change. First, King James II allowed Catholics to hold place as officers in the armed forces in November of 1685. Next, the king suspended the Test Acts and therefore allowed him to appoint Catholics as members of his council. In April of 1687, King James passed the Declaration of Indulgence Act which removed all laws against the rights of the Catholics.

All of these acts led people to begin to oppose the reign of King James II. Many people rebelled such as seven leading bishops who refused the king's orders to read his second Declaration of Indulgence. These bishops were arrested their rebellion. All of this lead the people of England to search for a new leader in fear of a Catholic monarchy. Conspiracy Many politicians were on a mission to remove King James II from the throne. In order to do this, they had to devise a plan, also know as, a conspiracy. This conspiracy became so popular that there were several names which grew from from its leader, William Orange. Prince Orange, the husband of Queen Mary (King James II's daughter), was at the forefront of this plan. For this reason, many called this conspiracy as the Orange Card or the Orangist Conspiracy. During the year of 1688, those involved had one main goal: to have the king change his pro-Catholic policies or remove him from the throne.Their plan led them to overthrow the government. Overthrow of the Government King William & Queen Mary - R. White (1703) King James II was a devout Catholic, and he wanted to increase the power that the Catholics had in England.

He began to replace any men of power that were not Catholic, especially Protestants and Anglicans. These Protestants and Anglicans were continually being suppressed more and more and feared that King James and his son would be the start of a Roman Catholic dynasty. William of Orange was a Dutch Protestant that married King James' daughter, Mary Stuart II, even though it was opposed because her family wanted her to marry into the French throne line. The people invited William of Orange to come and invade England twice, and he refused. On the third time, he accepted and led a large force to invade England in November of 1688. With just a couple minor skirmishes, King James' regime had collapsed and he escaped custody while dressed as a woman[ 2 ] and fled the country with his wife. There were very few casualties, no major battles, and the invasion was very short; and therefore, this revolution is sometimes referred to as the Bloodless Revolution. New Religious Government By threatening to withdraw his troops from England and leave the country with no stability, the parliament decided to make William and his wife Mary joint sovereigns of the nation of England.

William made it impossible for any Catholics to vote or hold a seat in the parliament, and made the law, which is still in order today, that the monarch could not be a Catholic or marry someone who was a Catholic. William signed the proposed Bill of Rights that guaranteed certain rights to the citizens of the nation, and he began the change in the English parliamentary to a more democratic one. William's overthrow of King James and signing of the Bill of Rights made James' rule the last time that the monarch of England held absolute power. England now had a Protestant monarchy and a system that recognized the importance of Parliament in governing. The effects of the New Government The long-term positive effects that King William III enacted took some time to show. The short term effects through, were war with France, and the accompanying financial strain. The tax and fiscal innovation set in place by King William III ultimately led to the formation of the Bank of England, but It wasn't until his successor, Queen Anne, reigned over England that the financial burden was lifted, allowing domestic and foreign trade to flourish.

This is evident in Alexander Pope's pastoral "Windsor-Forrest" on line 327 and 328: "At length great ANNA said - "Let Discord cease!" \ She said, the world obeyed, and all was Peace!"[ 3 ] By the early 1720's, the effects of the 'Bill of Rights' were starting to be understood very well by cabinet minister Robert Walpole who managed to "cement the displacement of monarch by minister". Instead of simply advising the king, Walpole effectively managed the king, and in essence ran the state. He was given the title Prime Minister as an insult to point out the obvious, but the title remains to this day.[ 4 ] Significant People Involved in the Glorious Revolution King James II of England "At midnight on 14th October, 1633, Henrietta Maria, Queen of England, gave birth to [King Charles I's second] son at St James's Palace."[ 5 ] That son would later be known as the fifth creation of the Duke of York, Lord High Admiral, and ultimately, King James II.

He promised to honor the national church and not to force religious uniformity during his reign, but his actions eventually led to the imposition of Catholic officers being staffed within the royal army, and the placement of Catholic officials in Oxford University. His 'Declaration of Toleration' was mandated to be read from Anglican pulpits. These actions along with the birth of his son James Francis Edward Stuart, brought the prospect of a long line of Catholic succession to the English throne, and proved to be too much for the English to bear.[ 6 ] James (only son of King James) Born on June 10, 1688, the birth of King James II only son was a major catalyst to push the events of the Glorious Revolution into existence. When Queen Mary gave birth to her son, the people of England were alarmed and frightened because there was now a Catholic heir to the throne. This caused the people of England to desperately seek the aid of William III to intervene and take over as king.

While William III was asked several times to invade England in order to remove King James from power, it was not until the birth of James did he feel it was absolutely necessary to take action and "save the protestant religion," as well as his position as the successor to the throne. William III (William of Orange) and wife, Queen Mary II William of Orange was the son-in-law of King James II. As a protestant young man he married Mary (the daughter of King James II) and therefore secured his place as the successor to the throne. After receiving pressure from England's politicians, William built up an army and invaded England in November of 1688. Below is an informative video of several significant authors in this whose writing reflect the aftermath of the Glorious Revolution. While some of them did not live in the time when it occurred, that drastic change in the political make of England impacted authors all over Europe.

Question: 'The Glorious Revolution' brought which monarch to the throne of England?
Answer: WILLIAM III